Why is a woman the symbol for liberty when women are not free?

Is being a feminist an act of gratitude?

The advertisement "This is What a Feminist Looks Like", posted by the Feminist Majority Foundation, discusses the meaning of the word 'feminist', who feminists, are and what the mission of the feminist movement is. It brings the valid point that both men and women can be feminists and it annuls negative stereotypes of the word. The ad features celebrities as well as other people who speak about these issues. One of the women in the ad makes an intriguing assertion; she states that "acknowledging that you're a feminist is an act of gratitude for the people that went before you and fought for the rights that you're now enjoying". Is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality between men and women an 'act of gratitude'? Is it a reciprocation of the work of previous generations of women who battled tirelessly for the advancement of women and society?

Being a feminist is about belief- believing in social, political, and economic equality between men and women. It does not necessarily mean that you are grateful for the work of feminists of the past or are a feminist because of their work. However, the views that are accepted today would not have existed if it not had been for feminists of the past so it makes sense that a feminist would be grateful for the work of these (mostly) women and appreciate their struggle to achieve that which seemed impossible. The act of voicing feminist opinions and ideas is not, in the act, a way to thank the women that came before us, but it is a way to give a voice to their work.

Feminism, like other movements, such as the civil rights movement (of which feminism is a part), came out of oppression. It was a rebellion; they questioned oppressive norms of society and rebelled against them, paving the way for a more liberated world. Contemporary feminism is a continuation of the work of the feminist movement which did the same for women, as each wave before it.

Blaring misogyny- are the sounds of feminism being smothered by contemporary music?

         The popular music of today is played everywhere we go, from our cars to our coffee shops and even our schools. While some locations may censor what they play, there is no doubt that the lyrics we hear is affecting us. Music has numerous positive effects, such as providing a creative space for writers, inspiring listeners, and creating solace for those in need. Music has always been an important part of popular culture, but as our society has progressed to the point where 'intelligent' technological devices are literally everywhere we turn, and one could argue that we listen to music more recurrently than any other generation. Not only do we listen to music more, we listen the same music more. On 'pop & top 40' radio, the stations play the same songs over and over. An important key to music, art, and literature, is that they portray our society and/or what our society could become. Now, what is it exactly that we are constantly hearing? Is this music truly providing comfort and insight in further ideas about the human condition? From a feminist's perspective, this music is portraying something important about our culture; it illustrates that equality is far from being reached. Because, much of the music played today blatantly degrades women and proliferates unrealistic expectations of women and their physical appearances.

                Although much of the music playing today provides a voice to love, relationships, and even fun, it also provides a voice for sexism and unabashed disrespect. This music exposes the ever-present sexism that still exists today. One blaringly shocking example, a song which made the Billboard Top 40, is "No Mediocre" by artist (if you call this art) T.I. (pictured, left) The song is so blatant in its sexism, it is difficult to comprehend how it made it to the top 40- it is problematic for many, many reasons. At its base, the song propagates the idea that women are only valuable for the physical attributes, if not, they must be considered 'mediocre' or lacking in some way. In the song, the rapper states that "Pretty face, fat a**, if she don't have one of these, well I think I'll pass" and he describes himself on vacation, saying "I'm in Brazil with a b****, Catch me in a mansion in the hills with a b****, Get her out dem tennis shoes, Throw some heels on a b****". First of all, T.I. states that the only criteria that he looks for are a woman's physical attributes. The only criteria. Not a combination of her golden tresses and her master's degree in electrical engineering, just her appearance. This propagates the idea that a woman does not hold value outside of her appearance- this in a time when we are trying to encourage women to explore relatively 'new' fields for women, such as engineering, computing, and other sciences and to reach beyond the established norms, to become leaders, is seriously disturbing. This kind of music hinders these goals. What are young women and girls supposed to believe? When they are hearing music, perhaps not to this extreme, but of a similar tone, everywhere they go? Where does their value stem from? In the second quote, T.I. uses semi-violent language, saying "get her out dem tennis shoes" and "Throw some heels on a b****". The use of the words of "get her out" and "Throw" should be used with caution, which this rapper seems to throw to the side. Here, he excuses violence and does not ask the woman's opinion. It seems that in his view, the woman's opinion is equivalent to the opinion of an armchair. The song propagates violence against women, degrades them and places all value on their physical appearance. The fact that this music made the Billboard top 40 is troubling. We must ask why this happens and what the repercussions are.

                What does it say about our society? Not only is this music being created, funded, and produced, it is popular enough to make the Top 40. It is important to remember that music in popular culture, represents that culture; what it is like and what it could become. My personal opinion of the "No Mediocre" example, illustrates an artist with severe inferiority issues. That opinion aside, this type of music may represent some sort of inferiority issues in society- where women are repeatedly being put down and their value being misplaced because of advancements for women. It could be a response- an attempt to elevate the place of men in the world and suffocate women and their self-worth. In addition, it's popularity is troubling- it illustrates that women still are not being represented properly and their most important assets, like their intelligence, creativity, and self-empowerment, are not given appropriate, if any, value.

                Despite the plethora of sexist music being played on a daily basis all over the place, there is still a small voice, a small minority of songs which seek to empower women. A few examples include "Can't Hold Us Down" by Christina Aguilera, "Run the World (Girls)" by Beyoncé, and "Girl on Fire" by Alicia Keys. These songs are few and far between, but their existence gives hope to the cause for the advancement of women. Their popularity is encouraging, illustrating some connection between listeners and the lyrics of these songs. It is imperative that the music that we so often hear, that puts down our sisters, our friends, our mothers, and all the women who surround us every day does not suffocate the causes of feminism and the small voice which represents it, and that it is given the chance to be heard.

Women's Strengths Undercut: How are strong female protagonists truly portrayed?

                    Although often underrepresented in film, women play a crucial role in these narratives, as they provide a unique perspective and experience not provided by their male counterparts. Women are too often associated with a specific set of traits and roles in film, as well in society as whole, narrowing their opportunities to be represented. These women are strong, intelligent, and independent (on some level). Some well-known examples of today include Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games trilogy, Dr. Jean Grey from the X-Men series, and Ellen Ripley from Alien and Aliens, as well as many, many others. But for some reason, these powerful women have their strengths undercut or they are forced to share the spotlight with a male character. We look up to these women and herald them as heroes, which they are. However, we must look at how they are truly portrayed and the pros and cons of this portrayal and ask why this is, and what can be done for female characters of the future. 

                    How are strong female protagonists truly portrayed? Well, they have many positive attributes which make them heroes; they are strong, fearless, intelligent, and capable of leadership. Despite almost always being surrounded by men, they continue to exhibit these traits. Ellen Ripley of the Aliens films is a clear example. Ellen Ripley is an officer in the Air Force who is on a mission in space with a crew made up almost exclusively of men; the crew encounters a ruthless alien species in both films and she survives and plays a crucial role in saving others as well. Women are other portrayed as using their minds rather than brute force to resolve a problem; this is imperative because the intelligence of women is not always of much importance, in comparison with their physical appearance.

                    The negative side of films with strong female leads are troublesome. In almost all of these films, these women are surrounded almost exclusively by men, are ordered around by men, or their entire mission is focused on a man. One of the most successful films in recent years, The Hunger Games, includes a female lead. The Hunger Games is a film that is set in the future, a post-apocalyptic existence where teenagers are taken from their home 'district' (similar to a state within a country) and forced to fight to the death in a sickening entertainment event called the Hunger Games. The main character of this series is Katniss Everdeen- she exhibits self-sacrifice, smarts, strength and independence. She is a true hero. Despite the fact that she is this hero, she is ordered by men, the president of the capitol (the leader of all the districts and the Hunger Games) is a man, and in the most recent installment, she was saved by two men. In Aliens, Ellen Ripley is a fierce soldier and saves a young girl and one of her fellow crewmates in an intense sequence near the end of the film. The remaining survivors of a fight with vicious aliens, Ripley, a girl named Newt, a soldier Lt. Hicks, and a robot named Bishop, try to escape the last surviving alien; Ripley manages to fight this alien while Bishop flies a helicopter with Lt. Hicks to get Ripley and Newt out of the compound before a nuclear explosion kills them all. In the end, Bishop saves them, even when he is severely wounded. Despite all the work the movie has done to make Ripley a hero, the man saves them at the end of the film. What does this say about female heroes? That they can be independent, and strong, and single-handedly fight the sources of evil, but they still need to be saved by a knight in shining armor.

                   One major, serious problem with the way that female leaders are portrayed is how they handle power. Films often show that women cannot handle it, that they are overcome by what makes them strong and this ends up just tearing them down. They go mentally insane when they have too much of a good thing- this being power and independence. Examples include Dr. Grey from the X-Men films and Sarah Connor from Terminator II. Dr. Grey is an extremely powerful woman who is a born leader. However, her powers become too strong and she loses her ability to control them.

This is a troubling trope- showing that women cannot control their own power only discourages them from becoming leaders and society from accepting them.

                    One reason that women are not permitted to have the spotlight and the reason they always have to be saved by a man could be that many people are not comfortable with women truly being the hero. A female hero contradicts long-held beliefs about the role women are supposed to take and challenges the position of men in society, as superior leaders and saviors. Women are traditionally seen a servers in society; they are at the right hand of a man and support his mission. If a woman can lead on her own without a man, this role is completely changed. She is a leader and does not need a man in any capacity. This idea, although it may be moderately accepted, is an total reversal of long-held beliefs. It will take time for these ideas to wear away and for women to be accepted as leaders in their own right. The film industry, while presenting the public with female leaders, has failed to give these women the spotlight and the independence from men that they deserve. If they can do this in the future, maybe the public will be able to accept women outside of archaic roles and as leaders, both in film and in the real world.

Examples of strong female leads whose fellow lead cast is almost exclusively men, who are lead by a man, or their entire mission is focused on a man.

1.       Hermione Granger- the Harry Potter series

2.       Katniss Everdeen- the Hunger Games trilogy

3.       Dori- Finding Nemo

4.       Ariadne- Inception

5.       Princess Leia- the Star Wars films

6.       Elizabeth Swann- the Pirates of the Caribbean films

7.       Trinity- The Matrix

8.       Leigh Anne Tuohy- The Blind Side

9.       Fa Mulan- Mulan

10.   Sarah Connor- The Terminator and The Terminator II

11.   Ellen Ripley- the Aliens films

12.   Dr. Ellie Sattler- Jurassic Park

13.   Dr. Jean Grey and Rogue- the X-Men series

14.   Charlice Starling- The Silence of the Lambs

15.   Mary Poppins- Mary Poppins

16.   Marion Ravenwood- Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

17.   Baby- Dirty Dancing

18.   Lara Croft- Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

19.   Margaret Thatcher- The Iron Lady

20.   Annie Hall- Annie Hall

21.   Maggie Fitzgerald- Million Dollar Baby

22.   Lt. Jordan O'Neil- G.I. Jane

23.   Anna Leonowens- The King and I

24.   Meg Altman- Panic Room

25.   Queen Elizabeth I- Elizabeth

26.   Elizabeth Bennet- Pride and Prejudice

27.   Wendy- Peter Pan

28.   Dana Scully- The X-Files

and many more.

A New Generation of Ads for Women?- Brands Encourage Awareness

Advertisements serve one purpose: to sell a product, enticing as many consumers as possible to go out and buy the product their advertising. But what if these ads could serve another purpose as well? Recently, I have noticed a variety of unique advertisements on YouTube as well as mainstream television; these ads are encouraging awareness of stereotypes that women have to deal with. These are ads made by companies whose target consumers are women, such as Covergirl and Pantene. The labels and stereotypes are interesting because they are the kind of barriers that many people are not fully conscious of. For example, there is a Pantene commercial asking why women "are always saying apologizing?".  What an excellent question. These ads are bringing forth important issues that women have to face every day and making us aware that they exist and need to change.

                What sparked this is new array of ads? It is hard to say. There is a growing acceptance of liberal social ideas in mainstream medias, such as growing presence and accurate representation of the LGBT community, disabled persons, or showing families that do not fit the 'all-American' nuclear family format. When there is a more accurate representation of minority or disadvantaged groups, like the LGBT community for example, society becomes more conscious of the fact that 'established' and accepted ideas, labels, and structures are not the only ones which exist or are allowable, or even accurate at all. This broadens society's minds and this is when stereotypes start to lose their legitimacy and people start to ask important questions. These ads do just this. So, maybe people will see that women are just another group that has been stereotypes and needs to be represented more accurately.

                What could be the consequences of these ads? Sadly, I have only seen one of these ads on mainstream television. The others I viewed on Youtube. Although YouTube has many viewers, most of them of a younger generation, narrowing its viewers to one part of the population. It would help if more of these ads were played on mainstream television. Nonetheless, these ads could have an impact, even if it is small. It seems that the goal of these ads is get people thinking about the stereotypes, labels, and barriers that women have to face in their daily lives. This is really all that is necessary. All it takes is one person asking questions and really thinking for great events to occur and for things to start to change. As they say, a single raindrop raises the sea. 

                Is this a new generation of ads for young women? The important thing is that these ads exist and are out there in the web. If these ads are a new sector of ads for female empowerment is another question. It is hard to say, but if these ads catch on, we may be seeing more advertisers empowering their viewers to breakdown stereotypes (and also buy their products).

Here are some of the advertisements I have seen:

This ad illustrates the double standard that women have to endure, especially strong, influencial, and intelligent women trying to succeed in the world. It features a young man in a corporate office described as "the boss" whereas a woman in the same position is described as "bossy". Clear and to the point. Sheryl Sandberg would like. 

This ad takes a more 'obvious' approach to showing that women can do whatever they want with their lives. This ad features strong female role models such as P!nk, Ellen Degeneres, and Queen Latifah describing what one would assume to be statements that they were one told about girls, about what girls "can't do"; they then say that girls can. Nice, short, and personal. You go! 

This ad was impressive in that it asks a question that many people are probably not conscious of. "Why are women always apologizing?". A very, very good question. This is something that women do constantly, and it is expected. It is expected because women are not "supposed" to interrupt and take up too much space or voice an idea. This ad brings attention to the issue society often has with women and their ideas and opinions- being entitled to them, sharing them, and owning them. What's even better is that it brings attention to this issue while also telling women "don't be sorry"- voice your opinion, speak up, you deserve just as much space in this world as anyone else.

Women of Awesomeness: Nancy Drew

 
There are many pop-culture icons which shape the way we think, enlighten us, and inspire us. Although they number few, some of these icons are women; they are politicians, television and film characters, book characters, writers, artists, women from all fields. These female powerhouses are a crucial part of our culture. They inspire young women and show us women what we can become; we can aspire to be the superheroes of our lives.

The first woman who comes to mind when I think of a female pop-culture icon is Nancy Drew. For those who do not know her, Nancy Drew is a young amateur detective who solves many mysteries over the years. She resides in the fictional all-american town of River Heights and lives with her widowed father, Carson Drew. Nancy is fearless and independent. She is also feminine and traditional. Nancy is a leader, and her opinions are taken seriously and she is not questioned for being a woman.

Nancy represents a intelligent woman in the male-dominated field of law enforcement. She blends femininity with strength. It is crucial that we have women shown in these fields; so young girls know that they can pursue any field of study, even if they will be the only woman in the room. Nancy Drew radiates awesomeness and so can any young woman who has the fearlessness and strength to do so.

Capitalism and Gender Equality

The United States prides itself on it's strength, it's stability, it's power. There is no doubt that United States emulates the ideal of capitalism and is a country who promotes equality not only on its own soil, but also in foreign nations, namely in the Middle East. However, the country still has far to go as far as equality between men and women; this is contrary to many other developed countries, most of whom have managed to bridge the gender gap to a considerable degree. What is the main difference between the United States and many of the highly developed countries of Europe? I would argue that it the system of government. There is a large difference between the capitalism of the United States and the democratic socialism typical of the progressive nations of Europe, such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

It is important to define capitalism and democratic socialism. Capitalism is an economic system where “the market forces determine what is produced (supply will meet demand), goods will be produced at the lowest possible cost and only those and are able and willing to pay 'the market price' will gain access to these goods” (University of Notre Dame). In a capitalist system enterprises are privately owned and operated. Democratic socialism is a system in which there is “popular, democratic control over the allocation of capital” (University of Wisconsin). Nations which emulate the capitalist model, namely the United States, tend to provide less social welfare and less educational aid than their democratic socialist counterparts. According to research and observation, the capitalist system also seems to be less effective in creating gender equality.

For example, countries which emulate the system of democratic socialism, such as Sweden and Denmark, have a higher margin of women represented in government and in education. In 2012, women made up 43% of the parliament in Sweden, compared with the United States, where women made up only 16.6% of congress (Women in the United States Congress: 1917-2012, Congressional Research Institute). In Sweden, two thirds of college degrees are awarded to women, where in the United States, women comprise 58% of all graduates (2010) (Institute of Educational Sciences). Bloomberg Newsweek presented a report which measured and ranked 143 nations based on gender equality. The countries were evaluated based on life expectancy, salary parody, access to high-skilled jobs, access to basic and higher education and the representation of women in the government. Surprise, topping the list were the democratic socialist countries (in order) of Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden. The United States was ranked 19, not a shameful ranking, but for the most powerful and democratic nation in the world, one would expect more.

This is not an argument for socialism, it is simply observing the difference in gender equality in two very different systems. I do not believe that is the system of democratic socialism which is the cause of such equality, it is the ideas of the system- the idea of collectiveness and sharing which by definition would prevent gender inequality. Even in nations which lean heavily towards capitalism (but retain some basic ideas of socialism, such as nationalized healthcare), such as Canada, have more gender parody than the United States. Because socialist principles are still retained to some degree, the ideas are also retained to some degree- the idea that helping to collective group also benefits the individual. Capitalism is an effective system which motivates its subjects to work and invent, to compete and to improve. In the United States this is especially true. Would the Wright Brothers have been motivated to create the airplane? Would Ford have worked to create an affordable automobile? Would facebook exist? I would argue that capitalism is the reason for these creations, which have added to the world in innumerable ways. However, this competition prevents the creation of nationalized healthcare (healthcare organizations have the right to compete for customers) and highly aided institutions of higher learning (these schools have the right to compete for students as well as for teachers based on salary and tuition). The competition and the strength of capitalist ideology demand extreme individualism and therefore people are less willing to open up opportunities to others (this would encroach on their ability to succeed). The system has no doubt prevented rapid progression of rights for women.

How do we resolve this issue? How do we blend the wonderful results of capitalism (the inventions, the work ethic, the economic growth and power) with the gender parody resulting from democratic socialism? This is especially difficult when the idea of socialism is considered 'radical' and 'dangerous' in capitalist nations (not irrationally, considering examples of failed socialist governments turned into totalitarian regimes). Women in the United States have worked towards equality and have made great gains, even within such a system. I have to argue that in order to retain it's level of power, women of the United States may have to continue to work towards gender parody in the same manner as in the past.